ALLYING WITH FEMALE FIPS TO PRESSURE THE GENDER POLITICIANS

ALLYING WITH FEMALE FIPS TO PRESSURE THE GENDER POLITICIANS

A couple of years ago I visited my immediate family (father, brother, sister) in Australia. I was listening to my sister talk about her female doctor colleagues about the new palimony laws that the Australian government had brought in. My sister, a medical doctor, is the most economically successful of the 3 siblings, with her own medical clinic, which employs some two dozen doctors, specializing in family medicine. She must literally be worth several million dollars.

Most of the doctors she employs are female, so obviously earn really good money. My sister was telling me how her female doctor colleagues were worried that the then new palimony laws could impact them badly, and that they were not happy about these new laws at all.

It was refreshing for me to hear the reverse side of the coin for a change. Usually, masculists complain about fluffies parasiting on men’s money, with fluffies getting the divorce courts to force divorcing FIP fathers to pay alimony to their fluffie ex-wives.

These women doctors had boy friends (marriage is dying out in Australia, people just live together) who usually just get called “partners” i.e. the person you live with, and have sex with. With the new Australian palimony laws, a partner who lives with another person for a few years, I forget the actual number, then has the legal right at a breakup, to half of the total assets of the ex-partners. (I’m not sure whether the shared assets are total, or only those earned during the years of the relationship?!)

These women doctors were often wealthier than their male partners, so if they separated, then their male partner could decide to go “fluffo” (the male equivalent of a female fluffie) on her, and take half of their wealth. When the female partner earns a lot more than the male partner, that could end up with the fluffo really “fleecing” (stealing) a lot of money from the female doctor partner.

These women doctors, were now seriously considering dumping their male partners before the legal relationship time limit was up, so as to remove the risk of a “palimony (law)suit.”

It was only recently, that I connected two previously separate ideas in my head and bingo, an interesting consequence and implication for masculism arose.

Women are now the majority of students at universities in the US and comparable countries. In many of the professions, e.g. medicine, dentistry, law, etc over 60% of the students are female. The percentage of women who are FIPs is rising steadily, which is a good thing from the masculists point of view, since one of the main political goals of the masculists is to push all women to be FIPs, so that they do not parasite on men’s money, i.e. manslave them.

Given the title of this flyer and what I have said already, you can probably anticipate where I’m going with this. Let’s assume that the percentage of women who are FIPs keeps rising and rising, due to a host of factors, e.g. feminist pressure, MGTOW/masculist pressure, self choice by women to be FIPs, etc.

It is to be expected that amongst couples in which both partners are FIPs, that in about half of these cases, the woman will be making more money than the man. With palimony laws, increasingly, women will be complaining about parasitism by lazy immoral fluffos, i.e. their male ex-partners, who take out a palimony suit to steal money they did not earn from their wealthier female ex-partners.

These exploited female ex-partners will then be in a better position to sympathize with masculists/MGTOWs who complain bitterly about the immoral parasitism of fluffies.

So, given this common interest, i.e. to remove these palimony laws, these exploited female ex-partners will understand fully why masculists/MGTOWs want to get rid of alimony laws (as well as other menunfair gender laws.)

The way to get rid of palimony and alimony is to get the gender laws changed, which means pressuring the gender politicians to change them. So the obvious idea comes to mind. The masculists (together with those MGTOWs who are politically minded) should approach FIP women and suggest to them to pressure the gender politicians to get rid of palimony, alimony, and to menfair the gender laws.

The gender politicians are not going to move until they are strongly pushed to change the gender laws, because in today’s world, the fluffie feminist movement is much stronger than the masculist movement (plus the fact that the pissweak MGTOWs are actually ideologically committed NOT to be political, a source of real bitterness between masculists and MGTOWs. Masculists look down on MGTOWs for MGTOW “apoliticality.”)

So masculists (largely) ought to talk with female FIPs about MGTOW/masculism, so that the two sexes (both FIPs) combine forces to lobby the gender politicians. With a higher proportion of women becoming FIPs, palimony laws will oppress them increasingly, thus motivating them to fight against these laws, and to put pressure on the gender politicians.

Thus masculists should see FIP women as allies in the fight against a fluffie dominated legal system that so oppresses men. That same system is now seriously starting to oppress women, FIP women, so it is to be expected that these FIP women will soon learn to fight back. They will understand the ideas of the masculists/MGTOWs and be sympathetic to them.

The masculist pressure on the gender politicians can only be strengthened if FIP women join forces with masculists/MGTOWs, to menfair (and in this case womenfair) the gender laws. Masculists and FIP women should become allies.